DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Court rules against Christian photographer
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 286, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/05/2012 03:38:33 PM · #76
Originally posted by LydiaToo:

I think it's the same principle as the government telling restaurants that they can't allow smoking in their private business.

WHAT?!

It's a private business and they're telling them what they can and can't do?

IMHO, if a restaurant chooses to allow smoking, knowing that the non-smokers won't eat there, then that should be their right. Or if they don't want to allow smoking, knowing that the smokers won't eat there, then that should be their right.

It's their business.


No, it's not. Smoking is not legally protected from discrimination.

Message edited by author 2012-06-05 15:40:01.
06/05/2012 03:42:39 PM · #77
Originally posted by LydiaToo:

I think it's the same principle as the government telling restaurants that they can't allow smoking in their private business.

WHAT?!

It's a private business and they're telling them what they can and can't do?

IMHO, if a restaurant chooses to allow smoking, knowing that the non-smokers won't eat there, then that should be their right. Or if they don't want to allow smoking, knowing that the smokers won't eat there, then that should be their right.

It's their business.


Are you seriously comparing discrimination and prejudice against those of a different sexuality/race/gender etc with not being able to smoke?

WHAT?!

Jeez...
06/05/2012 03:52:20 PM · #78
Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by LydiaToo:

I think it's the same principle as the government telling restaurants that they can't allow smoking in their private business.

WHAT?!

It's a private business and they're telling them what they can and can't do?

IMHO, if a restaurant chooses to allow smoking, knowing that the non-smokers won't eat there, then that should be their right. Or if they don't want to allow smoking, knowing that the smokers won't eat there, then that should be their right.

It's their business.


No, it's not. Smoking is not legally protected from discrimination.


Actually, in a few states it is. See the link I had above listing discrimination criteria.
06/05/2012 03:57:00 PM · #79
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Spork99:

No, it's not. Smoking is not legally protected from discrimination.


Actually, in a few states it is. See the link I had above listing discrimination criteria.

If a cigarette solicits my photography services, I will try my best to oblige.
06/05/2012 03:59:41 PM · #80
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by LydiaToo:

I think it's the same principle as the government telling restaurants that they can't allow smoking in their private business.

WHAT?!

It's a private business and they're telling them what they can and can't do?

IMHO, if a restaurant chooses to allow smoking, knowing that the non-smokers won't eat there, then that should be their right. Or if they don't want to allow smoking, knowing that the smokers won't eat there, then that should be their right.

It's their business.


No, it's not. Smoking is not legally protected from discrimination.


Actually, in a few states it is. See the link I had above listing discrimination criteria.


That list applies only to employment and not to publicly accessible spaces. Employers can't discriminate against smokers in hiring, but that doesn't mean they can smoke whenever and wherever they please. It also doesn't say anything about mandating restaurants/bars etc be non-smoking.
06/05/2012 04:00:58 PM · #81
Originally posted by LydiaToo:

I think it's the same principle as the government telling restaurants that they can't allow smoking in their private business.

WHAT?!

It's a private business and they're telling them what they can and can't do?

IMHO, if a restaurant chooses to allow smoking, knowing that the non-smokers won't eat there, then that should be their right. Or if they don't want to allow smoking, knowing that the smokers won't eat there, then that should be their right.

It's their business.

What about the employees who contract respiratory ailments and/or cancer? If smoking could be contained only to the people who want to harm themselves, I wouldn't care. Unfortunately smoke doesn't adhere to such rules.

In Canada, since healthcare is provided by the government, they should be allowed to steer behavioral patterns which serve no tangible benefit and are only a drain on the system. In Ontario, restaurants and bars have been smoke free since 2006. If the outdoor patio has a roof but open on all sides, also banned, as it should be.

Message edited by author 2012-06-05 16:08:16.
06/05/2012 04:05:17 PM · #82
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:

Unfortunately smoke doesn't adhere to such rules.

One of my current design projects is a campaign on third hand smoke.
06/05/2012 04:08:08 PM · #83
Same sex couples are here to stay and the only way to make one's self comfortable with it is to stop pretending they aren't human beings and treat them like you do anyone else.

If you or your business don't agree with their lifestyle choice, that is your right, but you still should treat them with the same respect you would demand. There may be many things about a business the couple doesn't agree with either, but if we all treat one another equal (wishful thinking), there wouldn't be an issue. Narrow-mindedness and fear are the biggest contributors to these types of situations.

BTW...did anyone happen to see this?? :) For the record, they are an extremely diverse company and are often recognized for their support of the GLBT sector. This company sits in the big old middle of the bible belt, yet had the chutzpah to go beyond what the "Christian" sector condones. They apparently skipped over this portion of their KJV bible, or decided it was for everyone BUT them.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24
06/05/2012 04:09:46 PM · #84
Originally posted by bergiekat:

They apparently skipped over this portion of their KJV bible, or decided it was for everyone BUT them.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24

But Leviticus 18:22, it's plain as day.

CS
06/05/2012 04:16:27 PM · #85
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:

Originally posted by bergiekat:

They apparently skipped over this portion of their KJV bible, or decided it was for everyone BUT them.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24

But Leviticus 18:22, it's plain as day.

CS


Thinking of Leviticus 18:22, this still makes me chuckle everytime i see it.
06/05/2012 04:21:47 PM · #86
Originally posted by rooum:

Thinking of Leviticus 18:22, this still makes me chuckle everytime i see it.

It's hard to keep track of all of them. I've read the Bible twice so I can debate my creationist cousin, but remembering the old testament is hard work. Storing that one in the memory banks because the irony is awesome.

CS
06/05/2012 04:22:01 PM · #87
Regardless, it is NOT up to US to judge others, we are responsible for keeping our own noses clean, so stop worrying about what others do that doesn't affect you. *gets off soapbox and grabs camera..."
06/05/2012 04:23:58 PM · #88
I'll bet that if this goes up another level that this gets over turned.

The question of what is and is not a "Place of Public Accommodation" has IMHO been misconstrued by the court. The Americans with Disabilities Act has caused a wide expansion of what is considered a "Public Accommodation" but it is far from a clear area of law. (Duke Law paper on the subject) In the old days a place of accommodation was a place that you needed, a hotel,a restaurant, a bathroom. Since the ADA that notion has been expanded into 12 categories of accommodation from most required to least. A person in a wheelchair has more need to get on a public bus than he does the need to get on a golf cart at a private golf course.

By expanding the Public Accommodation statue to a non essential service such as a photography business, I feel the court has over reached. By placing any and all businesses under a single category of public need, it has imposed a black and white rule in what ought to be a grey area.

If instead of these two homosexuals asking for me to photograph their wedding, it was a Neo-Nazi Aryan Supremacy group who wanted me to photograph their rally, I would want the right to refuse their contract. Being forced to work to further their aims and goals would offend my moral values. If a couple wanted me to take images of them while they performed sexual acts, I would want the right to turn down that contract too. Even though I would have no issue with the concept of their actions, being in the same room as two strangers going at it, would just make me uncomfortable. I am sure the New Mexican photography studio feels the same way about gay marriage, somewhere between moral outrage and "Eww, iccy".

If I was an emergency room surgeon, and someone came in with a bullet in them, it would not matter who they were, I would have a legal and moral obligation to treat them. Photography is not life or death, the clients need to have something shot is not so great that it trumps my right to choose turn down work that I don't happen to want to do.
06/05/2012 04:26:48 PM · #89
The old man speaks wisdom.
06/05/2012 04:30:39 PM · #90
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

If instead of these two homosexuals asking for me to photograph their wedding, it was a Neo-Nazi Aryan Supremacy group who wanted me to photograph their rally, I would want the right to refuse their contract. Being forced to work to further their aims and goals would offend my moral values. If a couple wanted me to take images of them while they performed sexual acts, I would want the right to turn down that contract too.

The difference, at least in Ontario, are the homosexuals are a recognized minority, pretty sure Neo-Nazi Aryan Supremacist aren't designated as such anywhere. You could deny photography to the clients if they wanted to perform sexual acts. I'll find the laws pertaining to this when I'm at home. Don't want those searches going through the firewalls.

CS
06/05/2012 04:32:10 PM · #91
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

If instead of these two homosexuals asking for me to photograph their wedding, it was a Neo-Nazi Aryan Supremacy group who wanted me to photograph their rally, I would want the right to refuse their contract. Being forced to work to further their aims and goals would offend my moral values. If a couple wanted me to take images of them while they performed sexual acts, I would want the right to turn down that contract too.

The difference, at least in Ontario, are the homosexuals are a recognized minority, pretty sure Neo-Nazi Aryan Supremacist aren't designated as such anywhere. You could deny photography to the clients if they wanted to perform sexual acts. I'll find the laws pertaining to this when I'm at home. Don't want those searches going through the firewalls.

CS


I want you to come photograph my daughter's religious female circumcision. yeesh!

Message edited by author 2012-06-05 16:32:23.
06/05/2012 04:33:35 PM · #92
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

If instead of these two homosexuals asking for me to photograph their wedding, it was a Neo-Nazi Aryan Supremacy group who wanted me to photograph their rally, I would want the right to refuse their contract.

Neo-Nazis are not a protected group. You can't turn down Jews or blacks as a moral outrage or icky, but Neo-Nazis work hard to earn their disapproval.
06/05/2012 04:42:51 PM · #93
So, if it is a case of essential items where does that leave the food store analogy? A food store can be seen as essential so cannot discriminate but the specialist chocolate store next door is non - essential so should be allowed to put a sign in the shop window saying, ' We refuse to serve gays/blacks/jews'?

Is it a case that people who are routinely the victims of discrimination should only be protected against that discrimination in essential matters? It's a start i guess. As Mike pointed out; the road to a prejudicefree world is long.

I'm not sure about the porn analogy. Surely if you have a porn photography business you would get used to it after a while. If you have a wedding studio it's hardly a case of descrimination if you turn a porn job down. Likewise, the Nazi ralley.

eta- excuse all the spelling mistakes. rubbish ipad.


Message edited by author 2012-06-05 16:45:51.
06/05/2012 04:48:25 PM · #94
Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by cosmicassassin:

Originally posted by mike_311:

be serious, i see what you are trying to do, that level of belief has gone the wayside and and most cases so has race, but we aren't their yet with sexual preferences.

Apparently you've never visited Georgia. Racism was plain as day from an outsiders perspective, yet the locals saw nothing wrong with it.

CS


i realize its a different country down there.


Racism is everywhere, some people are just better at not saying something out loud when they encounter someone they are racist against.

It's disturbing to see how much there is here in the Northeast.
06/05/2012 04:49:41 PM · #95
The title of this thread is incorrect. The ruling was against a business, not a person. A person is free to discriminate as much as their bigoted mind allows, a business cannot. This proprietor cited religious beliefs. A business, while may be recognized as a "person" for tax purposes, is not sentient and cannot possess beliefs. Sorry if this was addressed earlier, I didn't have time to read through the entire thread.

Message edited by author 2012-06-05 16:51:24.
06/05/2012 04:55:24 PM · #96
Originally posted by scalvert:

Neo-Nazis are not a protected group. You can't turn down Jews or blacks as a moral outrage or icky, but Neo-Nazis work hard to earn their disapproval.


So if the couple who wanted to be photographed having sex was white and straight, I could turn them down, but if they where black or gay I would be forced by law to photograph them? I think not.

Furthermore any group who is singled out because of sexual orientation, or race or religious views or political conviction is afforded protected status. " discriminating for or against employees or applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age or disability. It also provides that certain personnel actions can not be based on attributes or conduct that do not adversely affect employee performance, such as marital status and political affiliation." from Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination Questions And Answers

The law applies to even the people we think it ought to be OK to hate.

The suit has less to do with who has protected status than what if any business does not fall under the Public Accommodation Statute. The way this court ruled, there would be no need for the specialized term "Public Accommodation" since every possible business would fall under it. The exception proves the rule, and this court found no exceptions possible.
06/05/2012 05:13:17 PM · #97
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

So if the couple who wanted to be photographed having sex was white and straight, I could turn them down, but if they where black or gay I would be forced by law to photograph them?

Again, that's not how it works. If you refuse to photograph a woman in a park just because she's Jewish, that's discrimination. If you refuse to photograph a woman having sex in a park, it doesn't matter if she's Jewish because that's not the reason you refused– an altogether separate matter from simply being Jewish or black or gay.
06/05/2012 05:15:43 PM · #98
Originally posted by rooum:

Originally posted by LydiaToo:

I think it's the same principle as the government telling restaurants that they can't allow smoking in their private business.

WHAT?!

It's a private business and they're telling them what they can and can't do?

IMHO, if a restaurant chooses to allow smoking, knowing that the non-smokers won't eat there, then that should be their right. Or if they don't want to allow smoking, knowing that the smokers won't eat there, then that should be their right.

It's their business.


Are you seriously comparing discrimination and prejudice against those of a different sexuality/race/gender etc with not being able to smoke?

WHAT?!

Jeez...


No, I'm simply saying that when the government gets into issues like this it's against the rights of the business owner. If the businesses were allowed to serve whomever they choose, any business would most likely make decisions that will offend some and encourage others.... such as smokers vs non-smokers and homosexual vs non-homosexual.

I'm saying that the owner of the business, taking the stance that he did (yes I know it's legally the business taking the stance, but it's really still the owner who is, since businesses can't make decisions) is aware that he is giving up the homosexual clientele. That should be his prerogative, just as it should be his right to decide to give up smoker or non-smoker clientele.

Where I live it's against the law to smoke in public buildings. I'm okay with that since the entire public "owns" that business. But, I think it should be up to the private business owners to decide if they want to allow smoking in their building... just as a home-owner decides that for the building he owns.

On the same side, if he doesn't want to males or two females holding hands in his building... or people with blonde hair... or bare fingernails... or purple shirts or... it should be his right to say what goes on in his building. He will most-likely lose business over it, but that's the choice HE should make. It's his building and his livelihood.

The government should stay out of it unless they own the property where they say the discrimination occurred.

It's the same thing as them telling me how many gallons of water that I can use to flush my toilet.

It's not their business.

Now, if they physically harm a person with a purple shirt or bare fingernails or... Then, that's a crime and must be punished.

On the flip side, if I'm a person with a purple shirt and I'm offended that they won't take me business, I go elsewhere where someone wants the "Purple Shirt" money. If I'm really offended, I'll tell all my friends about it (whether they wear purple shirts or not) and then some of THEM won't give their money to that business either.

So, the business might go under by not serving people in purple shirts. And the owner might starve. But that should be HIS PREROGATIVE! He owns the business.

It has nothing at all to do with the homosexual or the Purple Shirted Ones. His rights are not being infringed upon. There are other photographers/restaurants. It's the business owner's rights that are being infringed upon. He has to do something he does not believe in. Is he right? I don't know or care.


[That's my thoughts on the matter, and I won't post again, although I know there will most likely be some disagreement about my thought. :D]


And... BTW... I don't smoke.


Message edited by author 2012-06-05 17:19:04.
06/05/2012 05:16:22 PM · #99
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

The law applies to even the people we think it ought to be OK to hate.

No. Supremacists are not protected under the law. If that group explicitly sought your commission for a photo shoot for one of their rallies, you could say no because you don't agree with them. They have no legal precedent to sue.

CS
06/05/2012 05:31:43 PM · #100
Nobody saw my female circumcision as something that would be protected but nearly everybody would have a problem with.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 01:25:43 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 01:25:43 AM EDT.